the oath of supremacy, who was a Catholic and a swearer? as for us, we cannot swear at all, because Christ and his apostles have forbidden it.' This pointed query for the present warded off the blow, the oaths were dispensed with, and he was dismissed upon his bare promise to appear at the next Lancaster session."-p. 220.

And he kept his word. He presented himself at the winter assizes held at Lancaster. When called for, he entered, as usual, with his hat on, a matter in which he was very particular, never removing it on any occasion for the purpose of paying respect to men. The court invariably objected to a proceeding so entirely at variance with custom.

"Chairman. Do you know where you are?' "G. Fox. Yes, I do; but it may be my hat offends you. That is a low thing, that is not the honor that I give to magistrates, for the true honor is from above; which I have received, and I hope it is not the hat which ye look upon to be the honor.'

"Chairman.

We look for the hat too. Wherein do you show your respect to magistrates, if you do not put off your hat?'

"G. Fox. In coming when they call me.' "An officer of the court was then ordered to take off his hat; and he was questioned again about the plot already alluded to; but finding they had no grounds on which to substantiate this charge against him, they tendered to him the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and one of the justices asked him, Whether he held it was unlawful to swear?' an unwarrantable question, because the act imposed either banishment or a heavy fine upon any who declared it to be unlawful.

"G. Fox. In the time of the law amongst the Jews, before Christ came, the law commanded them to swear; but Christ, who doth fulfil the law in his gospel-time, commands, "Swear not at all," and the apostle James forbids swearing, even to them that were Jews, and who had the law of God.'

"He then produced the paper which he had written, and distributed it as a testimony against plots, and requested that it might be read out in open court, as it would show, of itself, whether it contained anything of a treasonable nature. This proposition was rejected, and he was not permitted to make any other defence, but was committed to prison for refusing to swear. And addressing the court, he said, All people take notice that I suffer for the doctrine of Christ, and for obedience to his command.'"-p. 221.

·

The gaol at Lancaster was literally crammed with Quakers, principally poor laboring men and small farmers, who had refused to pay tithes. Many of them had been zealous royalists, and, before their adoption of the peaceable doctrines of Quakerism, had fought and bled for the late king, and had remained true to him to the last. Their persecutors were fierce round-heads, who had opposed them in former days, and who were overjoyed in the opportunity of wreaking their vengeance on them now, under the apparent sanction of the law. Many of these poor people died in prison. But we must proceed with the trials of Fox.

"1664. The assizes for this year commenced on the 14th of March, and G. Fox, who had lain in prison ever since the last quarter-sessions, held upon the 12th of January, was now brought up before Judge Twisden: his own account is as follows: "When I was set at the bar, I said, "Peace be amongst you all."'

'Judge, looking at him.

Judge. Well, will you swear or no?'

"G. Fox. I am a Christian, and Christ commands me "not to swear;" so does the apostle James; and whether I should obey God or man, do thou judge.'

66

Judge. I ask you again, whether you will swear or no?'

"G. Fox. 'I am neither Turk, Jew, nor Heathen, but a Christian, and should show forth Christianity. Dost thou not know that Christians, in the primitive times, under the persecutions, and some also of the martyrs in Queen Mary's days, refused swearing, because Christ and his apostles had forbidden it? Ye have had experience enough, how many have first sworn for the king, and then against him. But as for me I have never taken an oath in my life. My allegiance does not lie in swearing, but in truth and faithfulness; for I honor all men, much more the king. But Christ, who is the Great Prophet, the King of kings, the Saviour and Judge of the world, saith, "I must not swear." Now, whether must I obey, Christ or thee? For it is tenderness of conscience, and in obedience to the command of Christ, that I do not swear; and we have the word of the king for tender consciences.* Dost thou own the king?"

66

Judge. I do own the king.'

"G. Fox. Why then dost thou not observe his declaration from Breda, and his promises made since he came to England, "that no man should be called in question for matters of religion so long as he lived peaceably?" If thou ownest the king, why dost thou call me in question, and put me upon taking an oath, which is a matter of religion, seeing thou or none else can charge me with unpeaceable living?"

Judge, irritated, and looking at him. 'Sirrah' will you swear?'

"G. Fox. I am none of thy sirrahs, I am a Christian; and for thee, an old man and a judge, to sit there and give nicknames to prisoners, it does not become either thy gray hairs or thy office.' "Judge. Well, I am a Christian, too.' "G. Fox. "Then do Christian works.' "Judge. Sirrah! thou thinkest to frighten me with thy words.' Then checking himself, and looking aside, he said, 'Hark! I am using the word sirrah again,' and so checked himself.

6

"G. Fox. I spoke to thee in love; for that language did not become thee, a judge. Thou oughtest to instruct a prisoner in the law, if he were ignorant and out of the way.' "Judge.

'And I speak in love to thee too.' "G. Fox. 'But love gives no nick-names.' Judge. Well, George Fox, say whether thou wilt take the oath, yea, or nay?'

66

"Several priests were there, but none of them offered to speak.

"Judge. I am a servant of the king, and the king sent me not to dispute with you, but to put the law into execution; therefore tender him the oath of allegiance.'

"G. Fox. If thou love the king, why dost thou break his word, and not keep his declarations and speeches, wherein he promised liberty to tender consciences? I am a man of tender conscience, and in obedience to Christ's command, I cannot swear.'

"Judge. 'Then you will not swear; take him away, gaoler.'

"G. Fox. It is for Christ's sake that I cannot swear, and for obedience to his command I suffer; and so the Lord forgive you all.'

"He was now reconducted to prison, and on the 16th of March, two days afterwards, was again called into court.

Take him away, I will have nothing to do with him, take him away.' "G. Fox.

Well, live in the fear of God, and

do justice.' "Judge. Why, have I not done you justice?' "G. Fox. That which thou hast done hath been against the command of Christ.' Upon this he was again consigned to prison to await the next assizes."-p. 223.

Fox appears to have felt himself much aggrieved by the word" sirrah," used on this occasion; so much so indeed that shortly afterwards he wrote and published a paper on the subject, addressed to "all judges whatsoever," and showing that the use of such epithets was not in accordance with the usages of Heathens, Jews, or Christians. He cites a number of instances in support of this assertion. "The next Lancaster assizes were held in the month of June, in the same year, and the same judges, Twisden and Turner, came the circuit; but this time Judge Turner sat on the crown-bench, where George Fox was brought before him. He says, 'Before I was called to the bar, I was put among murderers and felons for about the space of two hours, the people, the justices, and judge, also gazing upon me. After they had tried several others they called me to the bar, and impanelled a jury; then the judge asked the justices "whether they had tendered me the oath at the sessions?" They said," they had." Then he bid, "give them the book," that they might be sworn they had tendered me the oath at the sessions. They said, "they had." The judge bid them again" take the book and swear they had tendered the oath according to the indictment." Some of the justices refused to be sworn; but the judge said, he would have it done to take away all occasion of exception. When the jury were sworn, and the justices had sworn, "that they tendered me the oath according to the indictment," the judge asked me “whether I had not refused the oath at the last assizes?"' "G. Fox. I never took an oath in my life, and Christ, the Saviour and Judge of the world, saith, "Swear not at all,"

"G. Fox. The words that I then spoke to them were, "that if they would prove, either judge, justice, priest, or teacher, that after Christ and the apostles had forbidden swearing they commanded that Christians should swear, I would swear.

"Judge. I am not at this time to dispute whether it is lawful to swear, but to inquire whether you have refused to take the oath or no?"

"G. Fox. Those things mentioned in the oath, as plotting against the king, and owning the pope's, or any other foreign power, I utterly deny.'

6

"Judge. Well, you say well in that, but did you deny to take the oath? What say you?' "G. Fox. What wouldst thou have me to say? for I have told thee before what I did say.'

66

Judge. Would you have these men to swear that you have taken an oath?'

"G. Fox. Wouldest thou have these men to swear that I had refused the oath?' At which the court burst out into laughter. I was grieved,' he says, 'to see so much lightness in the court, where such solemn matters were handled, and therefore asked him, "If this court was a play-house?" Where is gravity and sobriety? for this behavior does not become you.'

"The clerk then read the indictment, and I told the judge, I had something to speak to it, for I had informed myself of the errors that were in it.' He told me,' he would hear afterwards any reasons that I could allege why he should not give judgment.' Then I spoke to the jury, and told them, they could not bring me in guilty, according to that indictment, for the indictment was wrong laid, and had many gross errors in it.

"Judge. You must not speak to the jury, but I will speak to them; you have denied to take the oath at the last assizes, and I can tender the oath to any man now, and premunire him for not taking it, and the jury must bring you in guilty, seeing you refused to take the oath.'

6

"G. Fox. What do ye with a form? you may throw away your form then.' To the jury.-'It lies upon your consciences, as ye would answer it to the Lord God before his judgment-seat.' Then the judge spoke again to the jury, and I called to him to do me justice.' The jury brought me in guilty. Whereupon I told them, that both the justices and they had forsworn themselves, and therefore they had small cause to laugh as they did a little before.' Oh, the envy, rage, and malice, that appeared against me, and the lightness; but the Lord confounded them, and they were wonderfully stopped. So they set me aside, and called up Margaret Fell."-p. 227.

We learn that Fox on this occasion very properly complained of the badness of his prison; and in consequence several of the justices visited it; but the floor was in such a bad state, and the room itself so completely open to wind and rain, that they were almost afraid to enter. All of them, declared that it was "a most shameful place,” and a better was promised. It is needless to say the promise was never fulfilled.

"The following day he was again brought up in company with his old friend and present fellowsufferer, Margaret Fell, who employing counsel to plead the errors of her indictment, the judge allowed them. George Fox was then called upon, but declined the assistance of any pleader. His narrative of the proceedings continues thus:

"G. Fox. I am no lawyer; but I have much to say if thou wilt have patience to hear.' At that he laughed, and others also laughed; and he said, Come, what have you to say?' and turning to the court, He can say nothing.'

66

Judge. To the subjects of this realm.' "G. Fox. Look into the indictment; ye may see ye have left out the word subject; so, not having named me in the indictment as a subject, ye cannot premunire me for not taking the oath.'

"Then they looked over the statute and the indictment, and saw it was so; and the judge confessed it was an error.

"G. Fox. I have something else to stop judgment-look what day the indictment says the oath was tendered to me, at the sessions there.'

"G. Fox. Look to your almanacs and see whether there were held any sessions a Lancaster on the 11th day of January, so called?' So they looked, and found that the 11th day was Monday, and that the sessions were held on the Tuesday, the 12th day of the month. Look, now, ye have indicted me for refusing the oath in the quarter-sessions, held at Lancaster on the 11th day of January last, and the justices have sworn that they tendered me the oath in open sessions here on that day, and the jury upon their oaths have found me guilty thereupon; and yet ye see there was no session held in Lancaster that day.'

"Judge (to cover the matter) asked, 'Whether the sessions did not begin on the 11th day?' Some one in court answered, 'No; the sessions held but one day, and that was the 12th.'

66

Judge. This is a great mistake and error.' "Some of the justices were in a great rage at this, and stamped and said, Who hath done this? Somebody hath done this on purpose;' and a great heat was amongst them.

"G. Fox. Are not the justices here that have sworn to this indictment forsworn men in the face of the country? But this is not all; I have more yet to offer why sentence should not be given against me. In what year of the king was the last assize holden, which happened in the month of March last?'

"Judge. It was in the sixteenth year of the king.'

"G. Fox. The indictment lays it in the fifteenth year.'

not so.

"G. Fox. I have yet more to offer to stop sentence; ought all the oath to be put in the indictment or not?'

.

"Judge. Yes, it ought to be all put in.' "G. Fox. Then compare the indictment with the oath, and there thou mayst see these words (or by any authority derived, or pretended to be derived from him, or his fee) left out of the indictment, which is a principal part of the oath; and in another place the words (heirs and successors) are left out.'

แ

"The judge acknowledged these also to be great errors.

"G. Fox. But I have something further to al

"G. Fox. If thou hast enough, I desire nothing but law and justice at thy hands; for I don't look for mercy.'

"Judge. You must have justice, and you shall have law.'

6

"G. Fox. Am I at liberty, and free from all that ever hath been done against me in this matter?" "Judge. Yes, you are free from all that hath been done against you.' But starting up in a rage, he exclaimed, 'I can put the oath to any man here, and I will tender you the oath again.'

G. Fox. Thou hadst example enough yesterday of swearing, and false swearing, both in the justices and jury; for I saw before mine eyes that both justices and jury had forsworn themselves.' Judge. Will you take the oath?'

66

"G. Fox. Do me justice for my false imprisonment all this while; for what have I been imprisoned so long for? I ought to be set at liberty.' 'Judge. You are at liberty, but I will put the oath to you again.'

66

"G. Fox then turned about and said, 'All people, take notice, this is a snare, for I ought to be set free from the gaoler and from this court.' "Judge. 'Give him the book.'

66

"Then,' he continues, the power of darkness rose in them like a mountain, and the clerk lifted up a book to me. I stood still, and said, "If it be a Bible give it me into my hand." Yes, yes," said both judge and justices," give it him into his hand." So I took it, and looked into it, and said, "I see it is a Bible; I am glad of it."'

"The judge caused the jury to be called, and they stood by; for after they had brought in their former verdict, he would not discharge them, though they desired it; but told them "he could not dismiss them yet, he should have business for them, therefore they must attend, and be ready when they were called." When he said so I felt his intent, that if I was freed he would come on again. So I looked him in the face, and the witness of God started up in him, and made him blush when he looked at me again; for he saw that I had discovered him. Nevertheless, hardening himself, he caused the oath to be read to me, the jury standing by. When it was read, he asked me "whether I would take the oath or not?"'

"G. Fox. Ye have given me a book here to kiss, and to swear on; and this book, which ye have given me to kiss, says, "Kiss the Son," and the Son says in this book, "Swear not at all," and so says the apostle James. I say as the book says, yet ye imprison me. How chance ye do not imprison the book for saying so? How comes it that

into the world." This light they regard as greater than the Scripture itself, because the source whence those Scriptures flowed; and the influence of this inward light is a fundamental doctrine of Quakerism.

We cannot resist the temptation, in this place, of calling the reader's attention to the leading subject discussed between Fox and his judges-the taking of an oath. Of the value of such an oath nothing can possibly speak more decidedly than the fact that magistrates and jury, on the occasion in question, deliberately swore to false statements not knowing them to be false, certainly, but not caring to inquire or know whether they were true: certain statements, technically false, are laid before them, and to the truth of these they unhesitatingly swear, as a matter of course. It is not for us to enforce the unlawfulness of swearing, in a religious sense, as pointed out by Fox, and as still maintained by the entire Quaker body; we object to it as tending to narrow the foundations of moral obligation; and we regard the maintenance of the law on this subject at the present day, and the refusal to receive any evidence except on oath, however contrary to the conscientious feelings of the witness, as a relic of barbarism which we shall rejoice to see destroyed. Quakers and Moravians, by their successful appeals to parliament, are exempt from a compulsory disobedience to a divine command; but all others are compelled to disobey, or to have their evidence refused as unworthy of credit. We are well aware that a difference of opinion obtains as to the precise meaning of the words, "Swear not at all,"– whether they refer to profane or judicial swearing; but, in the absence of any evidence that Christ referred exclusively to either kind of oath, those can hardly err who conscientiously take the words as written, without attempting any explanation; and surely to such, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Dissenter, the right should be given to take the affirmation instead of the oath. We would not enjoin on any the observance of a command to which they can conscientiously assign some other meaning than the words appear to convey; but those who take the more obvious reading of the passage ought not to rest until they are freed from a compulsory violation of the dictates of conscience. On moral grounds we cannot understand how any man who views this subject with unsophisticated eyes can take a view different from our own. There lives not the man whose oath corroborates his assertion. If a man is determined to lie he will swear to a lie. Our courts of justice daily give us examples of witnesses who swear to speak the whole truth, and yet go into the witness-box determined to suppress such part of the truth as shall weaken the cause of the party who has subpoenaed them: a signal proof that the bad man is not bound by an oath; and every one knows that the good man requires no oath to induce him to speak the truth.

Whatever opinions may be held by the world concerning the Quakers of the present day, and whatever judgment the Quakers may deserve at our hands, there can be no doubt that Fox and his followers were imbued with the spirit of Christianity; that they were clear-headed, single-minded men, who preached the gospel in all sincerity, influenced solely by the idea that such preaching was required at their hands; that they were simply yielding to that inward spiritual light spoken of by St. John as

It must, however, be observed, that the belief in this inward light is professed also by every sect of Christians; but Quakers seem to stand out from the rest in having real faith in its existence. Did not this difference exist we should not find theological disputants alluding in derision to the Quaker terms of being "guided by the inward light," or being "moved by the Holy Spirit." Much misapprehension has occurred as to the Trinitarian views of the society from the fact that the term Trinity is rarely if ever used in the sermons or works of their teachers. This omission appears not to result from any disbelief in the celebrated and elaborately discussed verse in St. John,* which is taken as the authority for the doctrine; for concerning this verse, all Quaker writers agree in considering it explanatory of the entire spirit of the New Testament. The question of its authenticity is not discussed, because if it be a true explanation or summary of a doctrine already received as truth, it matters but little whether the explanation were given with the text, or subsequently. They assert that the word Trinity is not of Scripture origin, and therefore has no divine authority for its use. The charge that the Quakers doubted or denied the divinity of Christ was met by Penn, Barclay, and all the more able writers of the sect. No sect is less liable to such

a charge, and there is none which makes implicit faith in Christ a more constant and important theme of exhortation.

A few words as to the mode in which Mr. Marsh has acquitted himself of his task. It was no ordinary undertaking to compile such a life of Fox as should be readable to the public. What had previously been written concerning this remarkable man appears to have been designed more for the use of the society itself than for the world at large; and is rendered so prolix, if we may use the term, by detailed accounts of meetings, that many who began the task of perusal in the spirit of fair inquiry, would relinquish it from a distaste to the almost unintelligible repetitions. Mr. Marsh's volume is the reverse of prolix; it has no repetitions to render it distasteful, and gives just so much of the history of Fox as is essential to the understanding and just appreciation of his character. He represents Fox as a man of inflexible integrity, of invincible courage, of perfect sincerity, of indomitable perseverance, of real piety, and of unquestionable loyalty; an unflinching friend, a forgiving enemy, a true subject, and above all, a perfect Christian. Imagination, in all its vagaries, has rarely succeeded in drawing so spotless a character. There is one point, and only one, in which we would venture to differ from our author, and that is the tone in which he speaks of the Romish church; the frequent allusion to the members of this church, as "papists," is uncalled for; it answers no good purpose, and must be offensive to many. Mr. Marsh is, we believe, a member of the Church of England; he writes with perfect candor of Quakerism; why should he seek to disparage a faith so much more nearly allied to his own, and one which at the present moment seems spreading her arms to receive his own, through the friendly portals of Puseyism?

* John v. 7.